hasty ambush: IF UCAV technology proves out the will probably be America's last manned fighter.

[psk.blog.24heures.ch image 460x315]

This is a very big IF being brought to us by the same people who thought fighters would no longer need guns or the ability to turn back in the sixties.

Its going to be a long time before drones are allowed to issue their own kill orders. Which means a drone cant be relied on to deal with any enemy that could jam communications, which also happens to be any enemy with an air defense network or fighters.

These aircraft will physically last for maybe thirty years in service, not counting upgrades. So unless we keep producing them or have hundreds of spares, they won't be the last two fighters we buy.

/Considering that it takes a decade or two just to develop a new fighters, their replacements are probably in the works now.

Morons who have no idea what the world will be like 20-30 years from now think we should stop developing better air craft that first came in to wide use 10-20 years ago.

You jump up and down crying about every weapons system we develop and how much it costs. I'm just wondering precisely how long you think we should use the technology we have and not attempt to upgrade it because as you can see it takes more than a decade now to get a new system up and going.

If you waited for a world and a conflict that needed the F-35 and F-22 before you decided to make them you would never, ever, be able to develop them in time enough to use them.

Tobin_Lam:DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

That worked out so well until December 7, 1941. Besides, closing the bases is the last thing the economy needs. In some cities, the local base is one of the largest employers in the region. Not everybody that works on base is in the military.

What does the bombing of Pearl Harbor have to do with anything? You do know that the US Navy was fighting the Germans in the north Atlantic six months BEFORE Pearl Harbor, don't you? And that the US had built covert bases in Burma and were a week or two away from bombing the Japanese in China, don't you? The people of the US have overwhelmingly decided that "preemptive strikes" are OK, so the Japanese were totally justified in bombing Pearl Harbor.

DrPainMD:muck4doo: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

So, next conflict we get in just use nukes instead?

/Why is fark so full of stupid people?

What "next conflict?" Our national sovereignty hasn't been challenged since the War of 1812. The only conflicts are the ones we create or stick our noses into in order to justify more military spending. And, no, it doesn't mean rely only on nukes; even with a 75% reduction in military spending, we'd have more than enough military might to repel an invasion with conventional means. But, as I said, there will be no invasion; we have nukes.

Stupid people, indeed.

It's a good thing the US sphere of interest doesn't extend beyond your major landmass...

Tobin_Lam:DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

That worked out so well until December 7, 1941. Besides, closing the bases is the last thing the economy needs. In some cities, the local base is one of the largest employers in the region. Not everybody that works on base is in the military.

PS. Military spending, above that necessary to defend the country, is a DRAIN on the economy, not an addition to it (well... it's all a drain, but a necessary one). Towns that exist only to serve non-necessary military bases SHOULD become ghost towns... the rest of us can't afford to prop them up any longer. Their local economies may tank, but the overall US economy would be better off.

Kittypie070:I won't be impressed until that thing stops trying to kill my pilots.

With the advanced resources the companies had in R&D, using supercomputers to aid in designing and simulating every piddling detail, and billions upon billions of dollars of taxpayer money being poured into it, that bird should have been FLAWLESS.

I think you are thinking of the F-22. I can't find any instance of an F-35 killing its pilot.

DrPainMD:What "next conflict?" Our national sovereignty hasn't been challenged since the War of 1812. The only conflicts are the ones we create or stick our noses into in order to justify more military spending. And, no, it doesn't mean rely only on nukes; even with a 75% reduction in military spending, we'd have more than enough military might to repel an invasion with conventional means. But, as I said, there will be no invasion; we have nukes.

Stupid people, indeed.

I'm gonna be brutally honest with you: you have a decidedly inadequate grasp on global theater.Now, if you don't believe the US should be a "superpower", that's something else, but the role of the military goes -well- beyond "protecting national sovereignty".

One question I have about it however. In what types of situation would this feature be used? I'm trying to think of anytime a plane would be needed for vertical landing would be necessary. It would seem that unless it can take off vertically, they would need a runway to get it back out of wherever it landed.

Tobin_Lam:RockofAges: Tobin_Lam: DrPainMD: Actually, it looks like a huge waste of money. We're bankrupt and we have the biggest, most technologically-advanced military the world's ever seen, and that military is a big part of why we're bankrupt. And no country is going to attack us (ignore the propaganda about NK that we're being flooded with); we have nuclear weapons. It's time to close all foreign bases, half the bases in this country, and cut military spending by 75%.

That worked out so well until December 7, 1941. Besides, closing the bases is the last thing the economy needs. In some cities, the local base is one of the largest employers in the region. Not everybody that works on base is in the military.

A) Godwin, Amerikuhhh Fark Yeah! Style.

B) While you may be correct that slicing the military this drastically at once would have catastrophic economic repercussion, there is no arguing the fact that the military sector in the United States has been fattened up by such an indescribable amount for uncountable years, and certainly could do with quite a bit of year over year dieting.

I will argue point B. The size of the military steadily shrank by over 50% from 1970 to 2001 and at its most recent peak hit the highest level since 1997. The most recent numbers I could find put it on par with 1996 and that includes cadets and midshipmen that aren't even on active duty yet. The military is on a diet and has been dieting for quite some time.

We spend more on our military than the next 25 countries combined. And 24 of those countries are our allies. And, we can't afford it. Cut it to $50 billion per year. Not gradually; immediately. Like ripping off a band-aid.

The Bestest:DrPainMD: What "next conflict?" Our national sovereignty hasn't been challenged since the War of 1812. The only conflicts are the ones we create or stick our noses into in order to justify more military spending. And, no, it doesn't mean rely only on nukes; even with a 75% reduction in military spending, we'd have more than enough military might to repel an invasion with conventional means. But, as I said, there will be no invasion; we have nukes.

Stupid people, indeed.

I'm gonna be brutally honest with you: you have a decidedly inadequate grasp on global theater.Now, if you don't believe the US should be a "superpower", that's something else, but the role of the military goes -well- beyond "protecting national sovereignty".

I've read almost every book by every former Sec. of State, retired general, retired president, and foreign policy maker, and I'm ex-military from a career military family. I have a much better grasp of the world than you think. I'm aware that the military goes well beyond protecting our borders. That's my complaint; it shouldn't extend any further. And, we aren't policing the world. We're propping up half the dictators on the planet.

The Bestest:DrPainMD: PS. Military spending, above that necessary to defend the country, is a DRAIN on the economy, not an addition to it (well... it's all a drain, but a necessary one).

..and an inadequate grasp of global economics.

A good deal of military efforts beyond our borders are specifically for the protection of economic interests.

At the expense of our own people, infrastructure, education, etc.

Politicians whine about repairing and improving our highways, bridges, damns, and buildings being too costly and taking too long while supporting multi-billion dollar warplanes that take fifteen years to create and don't even work correctly.

Dansker:That doesn't sound at all like the way things are decided in the real world. If the US doesn't want Paraguay to buy these planes, the US can simply refrain from selling them to Paraguay.

That's because you are only looking at the most obvious consequence. The US can't prevent Russia or China (or even Spain) from selling fighters to Paraguay. If the US wanted to prevent Paraguay from having a powerful air force, the best way was to price Paraguay out of the market.

So, make the mega-expensive F-35 to raise the bar and provokes an arms race among countries to compete. Everyone else puts all their resources into a few high-end fighters to keep up. Production of low-end fighters is squeezed, and so countries like Paraguay have to rely on aftermarket and such to keep their air force stocked, or spend a fortune on a very small number of aircraft. That was the idea anyway.

The problem is, the F-35 ended up being even more expensive than anticipated, and we hit a recession, so now even wealthy countries are still buying the relatively cheap airplanes.

aerojockey:Dansker: That doesn't sound at all like the way things are decided in the real world. If the US doesn't want Paraguay to buy these planes, the US can simply refrain from selling them to Paraguay.

That's because you are only looking at the most obvious consequence. The US can't prevent Russia or China (or even Spain) from selling fighters to Paraguay. If the US wanted to prevent Paraguay from having a powerful air force, the best way was to price Paraguay out of the market.

You're not selling weapons to either Russia or China. Spain is your NATO ally, so there is definately a way to prevent them from selling fighters to Paraguay, or any ither country you don't want to have them.

So, make the mega-expensive F-35 to raise the bar and provokes an arms race among countries to compete.

But making it mega expensive was NOT the plan. Quite the opposite, which is one of the main reasons your allies, including my country, joined the project in the first place.

DrPainMD:I've read almost every book by every former Sec. of State, retired general, retired president, and foreign policy maker, and I'm ex-military from a career military family. I have a much better grasp of the world than you think. I'm aware that the military goes well beyond protecting our borders. That's my complaint; it shouldn't extend any further. And, we aren't policing the world. We're propping up half the dictators on the planet.

So your disagreement stems from the current role: I can respect that. That role, however, cannot change without a fundamental shift in how the world works, and the US's role (as a whole) in it.

The issue is this: let's say we suddenly decided "know what, this superpower thing just isn't working out" and we rework all of our mutual defense treaties, slash our carrier groups to 2, close our foreign bases and tell our multinational corporations "you're responsible for your own security abroad, now". We're done with the big chair. We essentially become present-day Germany (in terms of global influence).

Two problems with this: the US stepping down from its role as superpower doesn't suddenly create a global community, quite the opposite. Regional instabilities increase in areas that previously held US interest. There are other nations, China in particular, that would readily swoop into the role the US held, except with more pseudo-communist flavor.

The other is that even that hypothetical could never happen, because there are some very, very powerful men that particularly like the way things are now.

L.D. Ablo:Benevolent Misanthrope: Haven't the Brits been doing this for ages?

The Harrier was introduced in 1969 and was replaced by the Harrier II, which was designed by British Aerospace, McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing. Those are what's flying today. But they aren't supersonic or stealthy, so the F-35 is a big upgrade.

They have a handful of F-35s down here at MCAS Yuma, but they're supposed to eventually have five squadrons. One flew in March, but I haven't seen it yet.

Alphakronik:I'm not much of an aviation guy, but that was very cool to watch.

One question I have about it however. In what types of situation would this feature be used? I'm trying to think of anytime a plane would be needed for vertical landing would be necessary. It would seem that unless it can take off vertically, they would need a runway to get it back out of wherever it landed.

Am I wrong? Please help me understand this better.

Every single time it comes back to the boat. L-class Amphibs (LHDs and the upcoming new LHAs) don't have catapult or arresting wire systems. Every takeoff is a "short takeoff" or STO as the max deck run is ~800 ft. Every landing is a vertical landing. On your average LHD/LHA on a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) there are 6 Harriers (someday JSFs). During OIF one, we had 2 "Harrier Carriers" that were nothing but AV-8s. You can multiple your strike capability and flexibility without having to build $2 billion aircraft carriers. LHD/LHAs are a lot cheaper.

Keizer_Ghidorah:At the expense of our own people, infrastructure, education, etc.

Politicians whine about repairing and improving our highways, bridges, damns, and buildings being too costly and taking too long while supporting multi-billion dollar warplanes that take fifteen years to create and don't even work correctly.

Not necessarily. It's very easy to point at the big bad military as being the reason many of the things we need (or that people would rather have) don't get the funding they should simply because on its face, it's budget seems obscene. Yes, it's true that there's tons of waste (and by waste I mean things costing more than they should, much in the way that there's tons of waste in healthcare) and boondoggles in that budget. that is really only a minor issue though. The real issue is that some of the biggest beneficiaries of our military power and influence don't make their proportional re-investment.

kabar:Alphakronik: I'm not much of an aviation guy, but that was very cool to watch.

One question I have about it however. In what types of situation would this feature be used? I'm trying to think of anytime a plane would be needed for vertical landing would be necessary. It would seem that unless it can take off vertically, they would need a runway to get it back out of wherever it landed.

Am I wrong? Please help me understand this better.

Every single time it comes back to the boat. L-class Amphibs (LHDs and the upcoming new LHAs) don't have catapult or arresting wire systems. Every takeoff is a "short takeoff" or STO as the max deck run is ~800 ft. Every landing is a vertical landing. On your average LHD/LHA on a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) there are 6 Harriers (someday JSFs). During OIF one, we had 2 "Harrier Carriers" that were nothing but AV-8s. You can multiple your strike capability and flexibility without having to build $2 billion aircraft carriers. LHD/LHAs are a lot cheaper.

That help?

Yes, Sir, that helps a lot.

In my mind I just keep picturing a pilot landing in a clearing surrounded by thick jungle and "charlie", with a injured soldier coming out of the brush - bruised, battered, shot and bleeding limping as fast as he can to get the fark out. He reaches the plane, the cockpit opens, and he barely climbs in. Just as he says "ready", the pilot looks for a the "takeoff" button and says "well.....fark".

The Bestest:DrPainMD: I've read almost every book by every former Sec. of State, retired general, retired president, and foreign policy maker, and I'm ex-military from a career military family. I have a much better grasp of the world than you think. I'm aware that the military goes well beyond protecting our borders. That's my complaint; it shouldn't extend any further. And, we aren't policing the world. We're propping up half the dictators on the planet.

So your disagreement stems from the current role: I can respect that. That role, however, cannot change without a fundamental shift in how the world works, and the US's role (as a whole) in it.

The issue is this: let's say we suddenly decided "know what, this superpower thing just isn't working out" and we rework all of our mutual defense treaties, slash our carrier groups to 2, close our foreign bases and tell our multinational corporations "you're responsible for your own security abroad, now". We're done with the big chair. We essentially become present-day Germany (in terms of global influence).

Two problems with this: the US stepping down from its role as superpower doesn't suddenly create a global community, quite the opposite. Regional instabilities increase in areas that previously held US interest. There are other nations, China in particular, that would readily swoop into the role the US held, except with more pseudo-communist flavor.

If you look at our foreign policy over the last 100 or so years, you will see a pattern of CREATING instability. Granted, much of that time we were just Great Britain's towel boy, but we haven't changed anything since taking over the empire from them. And, have you ever wondered why Switzerland doesn't get involved in world conflicts? It's because they know that whoever controls the resources still has to sell them to make a buck (and it's always about making a buck). They haven't been conned into thinking that they'll be cut off unless they spend a zillion dollars per year on their military.

The other is that even that hypothetical could never happen, because there are some very, very powerful men that particularly like the way things are now.

aerojockey:Dansker: You're not selling weapons to either Russia or China.

You are completely missing point.

Or maybe you present a flawed argument.

Spain is your NATO ally, so there is definately a way to prevent them from selling fighters to Paraguay, or any ither country you don't want to have them. And you're pretty naive.

If Spain directly violated US wishes by reselling f35s, you could simply cut them off. Not to mention that a contract of that magnitude usually contains language along the lines of "Violation of this contract, including but not limited to resale to 3rd parties, will result in a fine of no less than 200% of the sales price.", thus effectively, economically preventing any sales to Paraguay etc.

The US is by far the biggest arms dealer on the planet; you have a dominant position in the world market, and none of the customers, who rely on buying your goods, especially those in NATO, can afford to piss you off that way.

Tobin_Lam:Kittypie070: I won't be impressed until that thing stops trying to kill my pilots.

With the advanced resources the companies had in R&D, using supercomputers to aid in designing and simulating every piddling detail, and billions upon billions of dollars of taxpayer money being poured into it, that bird should have been FLAWLESS.

I think you are thinking of the F-22. I can't find any instance of an F-35 killing its pilot.

Dansker:You are also going to receive the bulk of the combined production, and most of the money is spent in your country, so I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that.

Oh, you're one of those that wants rational debate. K, keep reading.

I can't see that any of that applies to Denmark, but I expect you'll be happy to explain.I'm not sure any part of that rant applies to Denmar.

You seem to want me to let Denmark off the hook, vis a vis my "yuropoors screaming bloody murder about cost overruns." Which I'm happy to do, as that was directed more to the south and west of you than anywhere else. Denmark has been extremely responsible, IMO, with its involvement in the F-35 program. Level III buy in, essentially a small down payment for the right to order when the project completed. The project has run into problems, the price per unit double, you guys have reconsidered buying the F-35. No big deal, we appreciate your non-refundable deposit, and understand it is out of your price range.

The problem has been with the Level II and Level I partners. They don't seem to understand that the US contracting system runs on cost-plus contracting, and that building a next generation jet is a whole lot more expensive than building a car. Cost-plus is an effective tool for the US military - it secures high technology weapons that work exceptionally well and that have a very, very low failure rate in combat. The downside is that this method of contracting has quite a bit of waste and overruns built in to the system. But that's legit - the military cares less about costs than capability, and nobody wants weapons built by the lowest bidder.

I simply find it amusing that the partner countries would throw money into a US defense project with no apparent idea how the contracting system actually works in the US. European partners want to be in on the latest and greatest technical advances in American military hardware, and don't want to wait another decade for the US to finally release those weapons on the general market. Fair enough. But turning around and losing your damn mind over cost overruns is ridiculous - can you think of any major piece of military hardware that the US has developed in the past two decades that hasn't had an enormous overrun? Did nobody in Europe or Canada do any research on the history of US weapons development before writing the check?

Europe, Canada, Oz, and Turkey all want the coolest new US toys, built by US companies, under the US system of arms contract. They all want it because they can't build it for themselves. But these countries want all of these shiny new toys that are at the bleeding edge of technology, without dealing with the negative outcomes associated producing these great new weapons, e.g. overruns in development costs.

DrPainMD:And, have you ever wondered why Switzerland doesn't get involved in world conflicts?

Because they're constitutionally neutral, and because they have made a good living taking care of valuables belonging to citizens in countries that do get involved. Throw out neutrality, and they lose half their customer base.

Elegy:Dansker: You are also going to receive the bulk of the combined production, and most of the money is spent in your country, so I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that.

Oh, you're one of those that wants rational debate. K, keep reading.

I can't see that any of that applies to Denmark, but I expect you'll be happy to explain.I'm not sure any part of that rant applies to Denmar.

You seem to want me to let Denmark off the hook, vis a vis my "yuropoors screaming bloody murder about cost overruns."

I don't really care about that, I just thought your pic was retarded.I mean, if you had said "What's that South America, I can't hear you over the awesome", or "East Asia", "Middle East", or "Africa", that would kinda make sense. But the only thing European countries are likely to say at this point is "Good to see that it works! I guess it's not a complete waste after all."

In the first takeoff it looked like the canopy was up... did they have to cut the zero-zero ejection seat for budget reasons or something, leaving the pilot to climb out on the wing and jump in an emergency?

HK-MP5-SD:It is just as likely that drones will end up going away in 20-30 years. All the major powers are working hard on jamming technology. If you can't tell a drone where to go and what to do its completely useless. Sure it is possible we could have completely autonomous drones to combat that problem. But the 1st time that a drone decides that a crane in downtown LA looks enough like a north Korean SCUD Launcher to take a shot people will put an end to that quick. The military will never put all their eggs in one basket. Pilots are expensive as hell, but we will have them for the foreseeable future. No way they take the chance that they will have to tell the president one day, "China has figured out how to jam our drones. They are selling the technology to anyone willing to pay. We have no airforce until we rebuild our manned aircraft program. It should take 10-20 years."

Not to mention that current UCAVs are entirely reliant on line-of-sight radio to fly and fight. The only reason the US military can use them in faraway places beyond line-of-sight is 1) the ground environment is safe enough that you can risk putting control vans on the ground, in-theatre; and 2) DOD has already spent a few billion dollars on a worldwide high-bandwidth satcom constellation.

Most other nations on the planet will never be able to risk/afford 1) or 2), so drones will be pointless to them (except as local point defence) until the drones are able to fly and fight autonomously.

Elegy:I simply find it amusing that the partner countries would throw money into a US defense project with no apparent idea how the contracting system actually works in the US. European partners want to be in on the latest and greatest technical advances in American military hardware, and don't want to wait another decade for the US to finally release them to the general market. Fair enough. But turning around and losing your damn mind over cost overruns is ridiculous - can you think of any major piece of military hardware that the US has developed in the past two decades that hasn't had an enormous overrun? Did nobody in Europe or Canada do any research on the history of US weapons development before writing the check?

To be fair, it's not just Europeans, who have had a problem with the increases. Your own Government Accountability Office was biatching about it as early as 2005, and Sen. John McCain has described the F-35's ballooning costs and delays as "disgraceful," "outrageous" and a "tragedy."

AndreMA:In the first takeoff it looked like the canopy was up... did they have to cut the zero-zero ejection seat for budget reasons or something, leaving the pilot to climb out on the wing and jump in an emergency?

notsureifserious.jpg

That's an airbrake/flap covering the lift fan that sits behind the cockpit. Here it is in daylight.

Basily Gourt:REO-Weedwagon: There are estimates this thing will cost one trillion dollars after design, production, upgrades, and cleanups of the wreckage. It's such a pile of sh*t there are pilots refusing to fly it. Of course the real problem is PBS and welfare queens.

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." HST

I have no problem with that description.

you won't until you figure out that the world could dispatch us easily if the world ever turned against us.

cptjeff:The trick is creating a boundary layer of cool(er) air between the parts and the ignition mixture. They're often shooting flame through those things hotter than the melting point of every part in the engine.\Enjoy your next flight.

aerojockey:There's no possibility to create much of a boundary layer in the burner itself because of the highly turbulent nature, yet the burner doesn't melt because it's considerably cooler on the outside so the heat can't stick around. The boundary layer tricks are uses mostly with turbine blades, which, although the air is cooler there, it's more of a problem because the turbines are under high centrifugal force and will deform well under the melting point.

I hate you both. Seriously. I always enjoyed being blissfully unaware of how airplanes work, and just counted on their relatively good safety record...Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go do real science - Mixing goat, donkey, and chicken blood up and pouring it over brains so that I can look for magical lights that appear when I shine freaking lasers at them.Also, set up for teeny tiny brain surgery tomorrow.It's odd, somehow I prefer knowing that my job can easily give me cancer and what not to knowing anything about your job...

Anyway, I know Americans tend to have massive inferiority complexes. But, what the hell are you talking about?

No no no, (US) Americans have superiority complexes, it's Canadians that have the inferiority complex.

Not in the slightest. It's a common misconception like saying the terrorists involved in 9/11 crossed the border from Canada into the United States. It was repeated over and over, and it's total bullsh*t. The average Canadian, like the average American, doesn't walk around saying "gee. I wish we had lots of military hardware and were just like Americans". Quite the opposite. Most Canadians don't trust Americans. We view you as openly hostile towards our country and trust you as far as we can throw you. We see your messed up economy, your messed up gun laws, your messed health care, welfare and retirement models as somethings to be avoided at all costs. Most of us think your politicians are antangonizing nut jobs who are out to screw the rest of the world out of anything they can get for personal gain. We see your war in Iraq as an illegal campaign and a war for oil that benefitted Cheney and Bush and friends. We see your bailout of the banks and car companies as enriching the rich and screwing the poor. The list is endless. And you and your fellow Americans are really seriously deluded if you think even for a fraction of a second we're jealous of anything (except maybe having warm weather in the winter in your southern states) you have....Dude. Do you get it? We're rich. You're poor in every sense of the word. Ever see anyone wishing they were poor? Actually, at best we tolerate you because we have too, not because we want too.Is that clear enough? I'm sure there are millions of people who want to be Americans. They're just not from Canada.Oh, and just for the hell of it. Your country is almost completely dependant on us for oil. ...

you sound jelly

Awww. You can't troll me so easy bro. Nice try though. I'd post the "I ain't even mad" meme but it's been over used on Fark, so I'll let it alone.

ThatGuyOverThere:It's odd, somehow I prefer knowing that my job can easily give me cancer and what not to knowing anything about your job...

I'm in politics, everybody already thinks they know everything there is to know about my job. I just studied aeronautical engineering for a bit in college, though that does seem to be what aerojockey does for a living. Also, you're welcome, and I think it's Continental that still runs a few turboprops.

All the stealth in the world isnt going to save you when the politician directing the limited war from a penthouse in DC tells everyone they need visual confirmation before they can fire. At that point it comes down to who the better pilot is.